There are legal and ethical reasons why VAERS data is important and cannot, and should not, be dismissed: (1) it is the declared and legally required pharmacovigilance of the US government. This is supposed to be a part of a comprehensive legal schema passed by Congress that takes away the individual right to sue over vaccine harms and in return created VAERS specifically to detect safety signals in the population. (2) Healthcare providers are required by law (by the FDC&A and the FDA regulations in the CFR) to report AEs to VAERS. (3) Government officials should be legally estopped from arguing that VAERS isn't reliable. You don't get to pass a law that requires a pharmacovigilance system for safety and then claim that system is unreliable when it starts to look really bad. (4) Particularly not where for decades we've used VAERS, and the government has used it to claim how safe other vaccines are because of their low reporting for LITERALLY EVERY OTHER VACCINE in the country. This is as dishonest and unethical as it's possible to be.
Also another big one (at least for the covid-19 vaccines).
Pfizer itself says we can use VAERS, because it is an "adequate" system to "ensure the safe dispensing" of the covid-19 vaccines!
Quote from Pfizer's own documents
"Pfizer believes that an additional suffix for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) would be burdensome and redundant as the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has existing methods to ensure safe dispensing and optimal pharmacovigilance of vaccines. These methods include existing vaccination record keeping practices and vaccine safety and monitoring systems."
"As outlined above, there are adequate policies and systems in place to ensure the safe dispensing and optimal pharmacovigilance of vaccines which COVID-19 will be subject to."
VAERS is included as one of those "adequate policies and systems."
I am intending to write up a conference paper on the MLTC that would include exporting of the text classifiers used in this work - Possibly for ICHI or HealthINF 2023. Stay tuned...
Craig Praadekooper's howbadismybatch.com has been fun to access since my lacunar infact a little over six months ago (my VAERS EN6204 batch is up to 107 deaths from 79 a few months ago) but this VAERS 2.O material could make awareness of the vaxx atrocity go nuclear. Thanks!
Thanks but I trust howbadismybatch.com to scrub this data so as to not "lose" data. This VAERSAware dashboard only lists 398 Pfizer\BioNTech deaths across all data sets. There's 107 listed...in just my one lot#!...EN6204. Is there a way to search just one lot# with VAERSAware Dashboard? Nope. Didn't see one anyway.
No worries friend. However you shouldn't think it's the only option out there, and if you knew more about lot#s and had deeper insight about vaers and a little more on how to drive the various dashboards at vaersaware.com, you could have had a complete picture, including ages, locations, dates of all sorts, and not just 3 SAE buckets. But hay stick to your own selective perceptions, mine says.... your loss. https://imgur.com/gallery/q29aOrV multiple lot selection? yup, child's play.
Interesting fact: when I wrote the first (interim) report in 2021 I actually added a footnote that mentioned that I identified 6 batches in the VAERS data way back then and only 5 months after the vaccines were rolled out that were correlating with higher death reports. At the time the fact checkers did a short hatchet piece saying I something to the effect that my tin foil hat had slipped. Come forward two years and Jikky the Mouse, HowBadisMyBatch and others have all shown that not only are there a small number of the 2000+ batches that seem to be reported more than others, and that some batches have been contaminated and have caused harm, BUT Jikky recently released evidence that Pfizer in Australia had several batches reserved for their staff that were not allowed to be tested.
I even explained to Sasha L. that throttling is getting extensive enough that it has changed the complexion of lot "toxicity". In some respects it could also change Kirsch's URF if he'd go back and do the exact same analysis again using the same time frames. When a early warning system holds in their possession reports for 300~665days before publication, it changes the whole paradigm! https://www.bitchute.com/video/ppLt8lQJjeSx/
Yes reasonable observations, but there is a layer of complexity that gets overlooked, the throttling! Aka the delay in publication of reports. Since pics are worth a thousand words I will give you two, and a video.
Please don't read too much into my previous observation. I'll keep the foot on the gas and do what I can with vaersaware.com dashboards. What I'd like to see is the "n" on each lot/batch from the manufacturers. Neither database will give me that. And, to this day, Paardekooper hasn't explained (to my satisfaction) his percentages: EN6204 2678 107 80 73 PFIZER\BIONTECH United States, Unknown Country 8.78 % [deaths] 4.00 % [lethality]
And, yes, howbadismybatch.com is NOT the only option out there. Agreed. I think you might be guilty of reading my mind if you were to stick with your "But hay stick to your own selective perceptions" observation, I'd argue. Hope this helps. PS: your snapshot is only one off of the one I had "106" to "107" so thanks. Appreciated, WelcomeTheEagle88.
It's not an exact science, my 1990 to current is unedited so I went there, you did catch me with my pants down, I don't know why I'm off by that much in straight easy toxic lot and/or c19 only dashboard. In those I am scrubbing using a python probability tool to help cleanse. So there are goofy reports that will have in a single lot field basically two lot numbers like 032H20A/EN6204. In this example I would have deleted the 2nd have and just left 032H20A. The other thing I do that does not affect the deaths, but all other event "buckets" is I assign only the highest level event to the report, there fore eliminating the replication or overcounts. I don't like when I see lots that say there were 150 ER's, 200 Hosp's, and 200 deaths, then you realize oh yes 10 of those ER's or Hosp's actually died. Most of the time the Lot counts come out slightly higher because I'm compiling the "typo" lot's into their true lot#.
Thank you for your insightful (and kind!) reply. Your guys are the generals AND the infantry out there. Spot-on observation on the "typo" discovery. Wouldn't you just love to pin the ears back on some pinhead at the CDC and scream, "Just give us the effing numbers, you creeps!!" in his/her/it's face? So frustrating. So very, very frustrating. Keep up the hard work! Love you for that!
I can only offer antidotes, but I sit in a triage room of an A&E department most working days. Initially, I saw an increase in DVT's after the AZ vaccine. With the mRNA's, after the third so called booster shot, I saw increased presentations in men aged 35 to 50 of new onset type 1 diabetes, lymphomas and myelomas. Another notable more frequent presentation has been unexplained collapses that don't sound syncopal in nature. After the bivalent injection I saw several presentations of people in VT (conscious not pulseless). The previous 20 years I had only seen this twice. Overall, the increase in stroke, MI and AF is pretty much par for the course that is already well documented.
This is excellent work. Despite the high likelihood that neither my friends nor my foes will not get anything from it, I plan to post your summary in a Twitter thread. As the trite saying goes, "Nothing Beats A Failure But A Try" or something like that.
We are digging into DAEN (Australian VAERS) here but the data is much poorer - sloppy, incomplete, difficult to extract. Your work on VAERS fills some gaps and will make our work down here a bit easier. Much appreciated.
Thanks. In the first (interim) paper from 2021 I noted that the Australian (and NZ and UK) systems were pawltry and pathetic by comparison to VAERS. I look forward to seeing what you find in DAEN.
"An intention to prevent disease is significantly stronger and less tolerant to failure than one that will only produce immunity, which in turn was stronger than the latest that will only produce protection."
Perhaps there is an interesting story if the word "immunity" was chosen as an unremarkable half-step towards the word "protection", as long ago as 2015 with several years of pandemic planning already on the shelf?
"Protection" itself is now seen to be only measuring immunogenicity as a correlate of protection before rolling out the shot and taking data that won't be shared. To protect some people at the expense of other people I guess.
Scott great work! One small comment, the symptoms can be infinite. The way you wrote it is unclear. Yes there are 5 columns but they can produce any number of rows. It’s a 1:x relationship.
Not according to Jessica Rose, she says each report has 15-20 symptoms max and the five columns are ordered by “significance”. See her interview with Ms. Aga Wilson.
Correct. If we also incude the Symptom_text and patient history fields in the data (which in my text classifier I did to see the breadth of patient experiences) then in some cases we see patients with many more than 20 symptoms and comorbidities, but the idea is that the 'five' are supposed to be the ones considered significant in the final (unfortunate) outcome.
VAERS ID# 2500895 has 164 symptoms, and is structured/ordered in alphabetical order also structured/ordered in like manner within the downloadable file. So unless I'm missing something, order of "significance" does not factor into this equation. VAERS does not follow the Correct Coding Initiatives (CCI) and/or primary dx coding, or the way health a professional or entity (hospital) would need to be a insurance claim for reimbursement. I hope I have eliminated any ambiguity, there is no "idea" or "supposed(s)" here. The symptom data file is structured alphabetically, and a ID# could have an unlimited amount of symptoms "apparently". I love collaborating. We need to get this right before Nuremburg 2.0. Please advise. Gracias
VAERS also just deleted ~8500 additional and retroactively what they missed on first pass, plus other countries outside the EUDRAVIGILANCE and MHRA systems. Countries like Japan, Taiwan, S. Africa, Israel, Australia. It makes no sense from CDC/VAERS original explanation...
on page 14 of 20 pages displayed in pdf form (page 13 of the actual report), there is this "As shown in Table 4, the SYMPTOM_TEXT narrative field of almost half of the
1012 reviewed VAERS reports identified a breakthrough infection after vaccination, through
description of a positive Covid-19 test during the clinical event leading to the subject’s death."
Does this mean that half of the deaths reported to VAERS had C19 infections - meaning that they might not have died from the injection?
i am thinking big pharma will also want the data adjusted for background deaths and will place the data in the context of "deaths per million doses".
also, is denis rancourt's work referenced here something you are involved with/know about?
lastly, i am thinking that there is different lethality/harms per manufacturer and dose. astra zeneca has been withdrawn (by stealth!!) because TPTB looked at data like this https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/eudra-shows-4-5-times-more-deaths and adverse events reported per million doses for viral vector C19 "vaccines" compared to mRNA C19 "vaccines" - media silence continues
Ladapo's report in Fla, showed no state wide excess mortality - but high risk in young males. which means that other ages/genders must have had lower excess mortality - i think it was older women particularly.
Just looking at the file size, once you open the HHS link, already tells you there is big problem as of 2021 ( not 2020!), less so in 2022 (artful dodging of data?).
There are legal and ethical reasons why VAERS data is important and cannot, and should not, be dismissed: (1) it is the declared and legally required pharmacovigilance of the US government. This is supposed to be a part of a comprehensive legal schema passed by Congress that takes away the individual right to sue over vaccine harms and in return created VAERS specifically to detect safety signals in the population. (2) Healthcare providers are required by law (by the FDC&A and the FDA regulations in the CFR) to report AEs to VAERS. (3) Government officials should be legally estopped from arguing that VAERS isn't reliable. You don't get to pass a law that requires a pharmacovigilance system for safety and then claim that system is unreliable when it starts to look really bad. (4) Particularly not where for decades we've used VAERS, and the government has used it to claim how safe other vaccines are because of their low reporting for LITERALLY EVERY OTHER VACCINE in the country. This is as dishonest and unethical as it's possible to be.
Also another big one (at least for the covid-19 vaccines).
Pfizer itself says we can use VAERS, because it is an "adequate" system to "ensure the safe dispensing" of the covid-19 vaccines!
Quote from Pfizer's own documents
"Pfizer believes that an additional suffix for COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified) would be burdensome and redundant as the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has existing methods to ensure safe dispensing and optimal pharmacovigilance of vaccines. These methods include existing vaccination record keeping practices and vaccine safety and monitoring systems."
"As outlined above, there are adequate policies and systems in place to ensure the safe dispensing and optimal pharmacovigilance of vaccines which COVID-19 will be subject to."
VAERS is included as one of those "adequate policies and systems."
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M1_waiver-req-designated-suffix.pdf
Document: BNT162b2 Module 1.12.5 Waiver Request for FDA Designated Suffix for Biologics
EU prebivalci imamo prepovedan dostop z nekimi banalnimi preusmeritvami in polnimi osebnimi podatki
I had to use Google Translate to translate your comment. But if I understand it correctly, you're blocked from seeing the pdf file because of your EU location. This is an alternative link which may work, in that case: https://web.archive.org/web/20220609224239/https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/125742_S1_M1_waiver-req-designated-suffix.pdf
hvala /thenks
Now that the Pentagon removed Vax mandates for the military, all mandates should be removed. #StopTheShots
I would be interested in any stored recoding or look-up tables that you may have created to group similarly named symptoms. Are those available?
Wouldn’t that be handy.
I am intending to write up a conference paper on the MLTC that would include exporting of the text classifiers used in this work - Possibly for ICHI or HealthINF 2023. Stay tuned...
Craig Praadekooper's howbadismybatch.com has been fun to access since my lacunar infact a little over six months ago (my VAERS EN6204 batch is up to 107 deaths from 79 a few months ago) but this VAERS 2.O material could make awareness of the vaxx atrocity go nuclear. Thanks!
Try this “toxic lot” look up, its Like Craig’s but on steroid’s https://www.vaersaware.com/dashboards
Thanks but I trust howbadismybatch.com to scrub this data so as to not "lose" data. This VAERSAware dashboard only lists 398 Pfizer\BioNTech deaths across all data sets. There's 107 listed...in just my one lot#!...EN6204. Is there a way to search just one lot# with VAERSAware Dashboard? Nope. Didn't see one anyway.
No worries friend. However you shouldn't think it's the only option out there, and if you knew more about lot#s and had deeper insight about vaers and a little more on how to drive the various dashboards at vaersaware.com, you could have had a complete picture, including ages, locations, dates of all sorts, and not just 3 SAE buckets. But hay stick to your own selective perceptions, mine says.... your loss. https://imgur.com/gallery/q29aOrV multiple lot selection? yup, child's play.
Interesting fact: when I wrote the first (interim) report in 2021 I actually added a footnote that mentioned that I identified 6 batches in the VAERS data way back then and only 5 months after the vaccines were rolled out that were correlating with higher death reports. At the time the fact checkers did a short hatchet piece saying I something to the effect that my tin foil hat had slipped. Come forward two years and Jikky the Mouse, HowBadisMyBatch and others have all shown that not only are there a small number of the 2000+ batches that seem to be reported more than others, and that some batches have been contaminated and have caused harm, BUT Jikky recently released evidence that Pfizer in Australia had several batches reserved for their staff that were not allowed to be tested.
I even explained to Sasha L. that throttling is getting extensive enough that it has changed the complexion of lot "toxicity". In some respects it could also change Kirsch's URF if he'd go back and do the exact same analysis again using the same time frames. When a early warning system holds in their possession reports for 300~665days before publication, it changes the whole paradigm! https://www.bitchute.com/video/ppLt8lQJjeSx/
Yes reasonable observations, but there is a layer of complexity that gets overlooked, the throttling! Aka the delay in publication of reports. Since pics are worth a thousand words I will give you two, and a video.
https://i.imgur.com/4UVtwSX.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/qrwO2tg.jpg
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TZGmnN8yRzjz/
This was helpful: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ppLt8lQJjeSx/
Explains the lag in the few months from 79 to 107 reported deaths with the howbadismybatch.com site I was using for EN6204 (and its many iterations).
...which helps underscore why I liked Craig Paardekooper's original explanation of the work he did in cleaning up the noise: https://www.bitchute.com/video/P7JbXSjaQzOX/
Please don't read too much into my previous observation. I'll keep the foot on the gas and do what I can with vaersaware.com dashboards. What I'd like to see is the "n" on each lot/batch from the manufacturers. Neither database will give me that. And, to this day, Paardekooper hasn't explained (to my satisfaction) his percentages: EN6204 2678 107 80 73 PFIZER\BIONTECH United States, Unknown Country 8.78 % [deaths] 4.00 % [lethality]
And, yes, howbadismybatch.com is NOT the only option out there. Agreed. I think you might be guilty of reading my mind if you were to stick with your "But hay stick to your own selective perceptions" observation, I'd argue. Hope this helps. PS: your snapshot is only one off of the one I had "106" to "107" so thanks. Appreciated, WelcomeTheEagle88.
It's not an exact science, my 1990 to current is unedited so I went there, you did catch me with my pants down, I don't know why I'm off by that much in straight easy toxic lot and/or c19 only dashboard. In those I am scrubbing using a python probability tool to help cleanse. So there are goofy reports that will have in a single lot field basically two lot numbers like 032H20A/EN6204. In this example I would have deleted the 2nd have and just left 032H20A. The other thing I do that does not affect the deaths, but all other event "buckets" is I assign only the highest level event to the report, there fore eliminating the replication or overcounts. I don't like when I see lots that say there were 150 ER's, 200 Hosp's, and 200 deaths, then you realize oh yes 10 of those ER's or Hosp's actually died. Most of the time the Lot counts come out slightly higher because I'm compiling the "typo" lot's into their true lot#.
Thank you for your insightful (and kind!) reply. Your guys are the generals AND the infantry out there. Spot-on observation on the "typo" discovery. Wouldn't you just love to pin the ears back on some pinhead at the CDC and scream, "Just give us the effing numbers, you creeps!!" in his/her/it's face? So frustrating. So very, very frustrating. Keep up the hard work! Love you for that!
I can only offer antidotes, but I sit in a triage room of an A&E department most working days. Initially, I saw an increase in DVT's after the AZ vaccine. With the mRNA's, after the third so called booster shot, I saw increased presentations in men aged 35 to 50 of new onset type 1 diabetes, lymphomas and myelomas. Another notable more frequent presentation has been unexplained collapses that don't sound syncopal in nature. After the bivalent injection I saw several presentations of people in VT (conscious not pulseless). The previous 20 years I had only seen this twice. Overall, the increase in stroke, MI and AF is pretty much par for the course that is already well documented.
This is excellent work. Despite the high likelihood that neither my friends nor my foes will not get anything from it, I plan to post your summary in a Twitter thread. As the trite saying goes, "Nothing Beats A Failure But A Try" or something like that.
Wow this is excellent, thank you.
We are digging into DAEN (Australian VAERS) here but the data is much poorer - sloppy, incomplete, difficult to extract. Your work on VAERS fills some gaps and will make our work down here a bit easier. Much appreciated.
Thanks. In the first (interim) paper from 2021 I noted that the Australian (and NZ and UK) systems were pawltry and pathetic by comparison to VAERS. I look forward to seeing what you find in DAEN.
"An intention to prevent disease is significantly stronger and less tolerant to failure than one that will only produce immunity, which in turn was stronger than the latest that will only produce protection."
Perhaps there is an interesting story if the word "immunity" was chosen as an unremarkable half-step towards the word "protection", as long ago as 2015 with several years of pandemic planning already on the shelf?
"Protection" itself is now seen to be only measuring immunogenicity as a correlate of protection before rolling out the shot and taking data that won't be shared. To protect some people at the expense of other people I guess.
Scott great work! One small comment, the symptoms can be infinite. The way you wrote it is unclear. Yes there are 5 columns but they can produce any number of rows. It’s a 1:x relationship.
Not according to Jessica Rose, she says each report has 15-20 symptoms max and the five columns are ordered by “significance”. See her interview with Ms. Aga Wilson.
Correct. If we also incude the Symptom_text and patient history fields in the data (which in my text classifier I did to see the breadth of patient experiences) then in some cases we see patients with many more than 20 symptoms and comorbidities, but the idea is that the 'five' are supposed to be the ones considered significant in the final (unfortunate) outcome.
VAERS ID# 2500895 has 164 symptoms, and is structured/ordered in alphabetical order also structured/ordered in like manner within the downloadable file. So unless I'm missing something, order of "significance" does not factor into this equation. VAERS does not follow the Correct Coding Initiatives (CCI) and/or primary dx coding, or the way health a professional or entity (hospital) would need to be a insurance claim for reimbursement. I hope I have eliminated any ambiguity, there is no "idea" or "supposed(s)" here. The symptom data file is structured alphabetically, and a ID# could have an unlimited amount of symptoms "apparently". I love collaborating. We need to get this right before Nuremburg 2.0. Please advise. Gracias
Do you have any comment about the purge of data from VAERS that CDC did on November 18 2022? Documented by Jessica Rose
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-lost-myocarditis-death-neuropathy
VAERS also just deleted ~8500 additional and retroactively what they missed on first pass, plus other countries outside the EUDRAVIGILANCE and MHRA systems. Countries like Japan, Taiwan, S. Africa, Israel, Australia. It makes no sense from CDC/VAERS original explanation...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JKZmniiJJRJU/
interesting! and outrageous
Solid!
on page 14 of 20 pages displayed in pdf form (page 13 of the actual report), there is this "As shown in Table 4, the SYMPTOM_TEXT narrative field of almost half of the
1012 reviewed VAERS reports identified a breakthrough infection after vaccination, through
description of a positive Covid-19 test during the clinical event leading to the subject’s death."
Does this mean that half of the deaths reported to VAERS had C19 infections - meaning that they might not have died from the injection?
i am thinking big pharma will also want the data adjusted for background deaths and will place the data in the context of "deaths per million doses".
also, is denis rancourt's work referenced here something you are involved with/know about?
https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/did-the-roll-out-of-approximately 350 million doses in India between April-July 2021 cause 3.7 million deaths?
lastly, i am thinking that there is different lethality/harms per manufacturer and dose. astra zeneca has been withdrawn (by stealth!!) because TPTB looked at data like this https://peterhalligan.substack.com/p/eudra-shows-4-5-times-more-deaths and adverse events reported per million doses for viral vector C19 "vaccines" compared to mRNA C19 "vaccines" - media silence continues
Ladapo's report in Fla, showed no state wide excess mortality - but high risk in young males. which means that other ages/genders must have had lower excess mortality - i think it was older women particularly.
Anyway, usual great work!
Onwards!
Great work. See also the work of my Deep Data Diving friend.
https://gettr.com/user/openvaet
and
https://openvaet.substack.com/
and
https://openvaet.org/usa_moderna_pfizer_deaths_by_groups?currentLanguage=en
Visit https://www.vaersaware.com/dashboards
Thanks very much. Bookmarked.
Just looking at the file size, once you open the HHS link, already tells you there is big problem as of 2021 ( not 2020!), less so in 2022 (artful dodging of data?).
V EU smo blokirani z nekimi dodatki, kjer hočejo vse osebne podatke